Thursday, September 3, 2009

Readers! I bring good news. It appears that the violent uproar of internet anger over comic 631 is indeed so great that we have yet another guest post about it! So that makes 4 total posts on this comic: Mine, Jay's, Rob's, and the following, coming from my mortal enemy, William Monty Hughes.

Stop! I know what you are thinking. "Give in and publish the most vile dreck imaginable? Allow Willy Huge's libels and horrid distortions to appear on this, the third most popular anti-xkcd blog in the entire blogger.com domain? Surely you cannot be serious!"

Never fear! I have received word that Willy Huge was, like us, outraged by this comic, and felt the need to recant everything he has ever written, in one fell swoop of bloggeteering. I myself have not actually read the post in question, but I know that even William must have terrible things to say about comic 631. Right? His post is copy and pasted, starting now:

===================================

I am William Monty Hughes, and it is extremely likely that I am faster, stronger and more intelligent than the person reading this sentence (that would be you).

I am only posting on this Beelzeblag to provide a necessary unbiased and contrary opinion (mine). I am disrupting the perpetual circle-jerk that is the Xkcdsucks.blogspot.com community, and for this I am proud. Perhaps I can even redeem some of their most volatile members with my rhetorical skill.

My thoughts on the recent "Xkcd":

The most recent "Xkcd" is already easily one of my all-time favourites. Do you want to know why, humble reader? It is simple, but since you are probably a complete and utter moron (I know the first person other than me to read this certainly is, Wheeler) I shall have to beat the point into your microscopic, nihilistic brain.

Today's strip made me laugh, think and also gave me a GIGANTIC erection (thank you, Mr. Munroe). An extremely rare occurrence for an online comic, even this one (please forgive me if I am being rude). This would be the first I have seen to tackle all three aspects.

Since I have a perfect, photographic memory (Yes, I'm eidectic, how surprising), I shall relay to you my exact first reactions to the recent strip.

I am waiting. In several minutes a masterpiece shall be uploaded to the inter-net, for the masses to behold.

It is time. I refresh once more.

...

It's not there! It's not there! I focus my rage into a roar, and SCREAM into the Heavens!

"Why? Why?!"

An eternity passes. It should be there. Why isn't it there?!

I futiley refresh a final time... But DISASTER strikes once more! My personal computer FREEZES. It REFUSES to load!

I erred, and I apologize. I realized my grave mistake the instant those blasphemous words -my words- charged forth from my tongue, in my voice but not of my soul.

I was about to punish myself as, remarkably, my personal computer returned to normality. Xkcd.com had loaded, and what did I find on my blessed monitor?

A comic strip. A NEW comic strip. Oh, frabjous day!

I read "female breast", and my mind exploded, blood instinctively RUSHED to my perfect penis. I predicted this was going to be an excellent strip (more evidence for the case of me being an oracle) and so felt I must savour it, as I knew that this would be the only time, EVER, in the history of the entire multi-universal spectrum, that William Monty Hughes (IQ 224) saw this particular "Xkcd" strip for the first, and possibly most fulfilling time.

I looked below the caption, and saw a wonderfully drawn breast. Exactly like the ones on Google Images! I must once again commend Randall for his realistic artistic talent.

I also saw the labels, and I must say, they were extremely informative. "Xkcd" teaches and entertains simultaneously!

Panel 1 had finished. The comic was 1/4, 0.25 or 25% complete.

I started Panel 2. I had thought that nothing could supercede Panel 1! I was wrong. So very wrong. A perfectly renditioned human female vagina/anus is indeed vastly superior to a perfectly renditioned human female breast. The only point of improvement would be the rude and intrusive "hey!" dialogue bubble. How inconvenient! I rushed Panel 2 in hopes of there being another vagina (or perhaps something EVEN more erotic) in panel 3, only completely devoid of speech. I wish I had not.

Panel 2 had finished. The comic was 1/2, 0.5 or 50% complete.

I began reading Panel 3, and I am ashamed to admit it, but I was disappointed. It was MUCH less "sexy" than Panel 2. *Sigh*

"External male genitalia". Oh dear. I am a very heterosexual male and I do not approve of this at all.

Ah, false alarm. Wonderful subversion of my expectations! I am glad I did not have to see a male reproductive organ other than my own.

"Shit". Hmm, oh dear, a character is either referring to feces or something negative has occurred.

"What the hell? You can't do that in here!"

What are they doing?! Tell me now! I must know! I am sure it is hilarious AND imaginative! What is the correlation between this and Panels 1 and 2?!

"Megan, get off the table!". Ah, the pretty lady is "Megan". Panels 1 and 2 were taken while she was lying on a table, naked. Of course!

I wish I was intimate with Megan! Is this specific strip based on a true story, Randall? I hope so (my reasoning shall become apparent later).

This is the point when my human male penis had become fully erect.

"Grab the tripod!" What tripod? Is that a euphemism? Or is he being literal?! I could not wait to find out the secret to my enquiries!

Panel 3 had finished. The comic was 3/4, 0.75 or 75% complete. A true shame.

"Erect penis". I was half-expecting to see a photo of my own as this panel. How amusing if that had been true, if slightly embarrassing, and not as HILARIOUS as the original comic.

"We're calling the cops". Oh dear, run Megan, run!!!

"Run!" I have a spiritual bond with this character, that goes beyond our similarity of character. Could we be... Heterosexual soul-mates? This could prove tiresome as that character is a fictional stick-figure.

"TGI Friday's is a family establishment!". TGI Friday's has spurned me in the past, so the prospect of this actually occurring amuses me. In fact, I hope it does, over-weight, rude red-haired, teenage employee! Take that!

At this point, the joke had become so very clear to me, and I burst out laughing for several long and extremely pleasurable minutes, before ceasing.

I have reviewed responses from the fora, and I fail to see the reason why some consider the nudity to be a problem.

Heterosexual males should enjoy the nudity. Homosexual females should enjoy the nudity. Heterosexual females should not care.

Homosexual males... Perhaps. Does this mean that Roberto, James and Carl Wheeler are all gay? For each other? I refuse to comment further.

The answer is yes, they are.

In conclusion, this comic is flawless and, if I was the President of the United States of America, I would pass a law to send all "Xkcd" detractors to insane asylums.

For those who would speak ill of "Xkcd's" esteemed creator:

I insulted Lord Munroe, and he had the compassion to not withhold the strip from me, as he should have. This speaks wonders of the vastness of the man's infinite capability for compassion.

Randall, I forgive you. I always have and always shall. I only hope that you can one day forgive me.

-William Monty Hughes

IQ 224

"Cogito Ergo Sum"

P.S: I know how you all seem to masturbate to acronyms (one of the key signs of a weak mind), so I've provided you with some material, I hope it fails to disappoint:

Randall, PDNLMHPSFALAYDUDSBIOI.

Or "please do not leave my head. Please stay for as long as you desire, until doing so becomes impractical or inefficient".

P.P.S: As some of you may or may not know, I have recently been SHUNNED and INSULTED by the TvTropes "Xkcd" fora community. Probably on account of their immense jealousy for my intellect, prose and achievements. Though why they claim to "enjoy" "Xkcd", I cannot fathom. If they are deeply envious of me (to the point of spite), then why not of Munroe? Whose accomplishments and mental acuity far surpass my own.

They are essentially you (back-water public-schooled mutants), only on the opposite polarity in regards to "Xkcd".

I would appreciate it if you were to join Rupert Lostman's war campaign against them. This will weaken both of your sides, which is beneficial to me as I loathe you both (this is an old war tactic, to manipulate your enemies against each other).

Sickening Sychopantic (this is a technique that I am utilising known by many names, most prominently known as "alliteration") Carl "Ugly" Wheeler worship is rampant and Rupert Lostman's trademarked retardation is scattered amidst the pages, completely ruining the thread and all potential quality it may have held.

P.P.P.S: I have recently stumbled upon the "Dominic Deegan" thread in the "Giant in the Playground Fora".

It is almost exactly like THIS cultist community. Probably because your motive for hating this comic is EXACTLY THE SAME as that of the Dominic-Deegan-Detractors. Envy.

For a great comic and its even greater creator.

You both:

1. Nitpick over minor details that are not even errors.

2. Complaining about delusions of "stilted" or "unnatural" dialogue.

3. Do not understand that "bad art" is simply a stylistic choice.

4. Have no sense of humour.

5. Have abysmal spelling and grammar.

6. Complain about "one-dimensional characters" when they are, in actuality, well-rounded realistic people with complex personalities.

7. COMPLAIN ABOUT EVERYTHING FOR NO REASON AT ALL

You even share a member: Frogwarrior.

Farewell, may the vast majority of the people who read this PERISH soon, and painfully. Without honour. A karmic death. You are all despicable proto-human beings. This is not a subjective opinion, but an objective fact.

I feel this comic could've been funnier if it rang remotely true to anyone ever. It seems like the sort of thing that would be a great gag on Futurama, but only because the setting is so well established and Futurama has fantastic writers.

Actually, though, it is an acceptable double-entendre. "Products you like" could be a guy attempting to be tactful about mentioning that she loves sybians and triple-ended fist-shaped dildos and crap, and so the reveal that no, she's not a sex fiend, she's a spam bot, at least sort of makes sense.

(The main problem is that obviously in this universe, no spam bot can pass as human for more than like three lines of chat. For my money, the best one is the AnonTalk spambot on 4chan, which is actually more civil and eloquent than 99% of the actual users.)

Yeah, the new comic is just mediocre, which makes it several hundred thousand times better than 631.

I thought it was kind of clever -- Randy didn't telegraph the, ah, "joke," which is always a good start for him. And none of the dialogue was painfully unrealistic. But, um, there's the fact that the "joke" just wasn't very funny, and this is coming from a math and CS major who's been into AI since he was like, 12.

The problem is that Randy totally failed to set up an expectation which he would then subvert with the last panel. I mean, yeah, I see that he tried to make me think they're talking about STDs, but when you're reading the third panel (where the real setup is) you're still going "what the fuck?" from the second panel, which doesn't make sense in any human context (at least not without stretching the meaning, a LOT.)

Honestly, this could have worked quite well in a non-comics medium, where you have more control over timing, and it could even have worked as a comic in the hands of a more capable writer. But, as usual, Randy fucked it up.

The new comic looks really good compared to the atrocity that was 631. But the whole idea of "bots can't read captchas" is getting quite tired. I was instantly reminded of this comic, and I'm sure xkcd had a number of captcha-related comics as well. But anyway, there actually was a joke, and it doesn't happen very often these days.

See, the second panel pretty much gave it away for me. "Mention[ing] products you like" instantly made me think of promotional emails from Amazon ("You recently purchased XYZ. You might also be interested in..."). And then what do you know, turns out she's a spambot trying to sell him something.

Anyway, I kind of liked this comic a little, but of course I'm still in recovery from 631 so that might just be the vicodin talking.

Strange how Rob is a character in the latest comic. I think we all know what this means;

Rob is RANDALL.

As an aside though, I thought that wednesdays was the last one I'd ever read, but you can't give up a three year habit cold like that. So todays makes me glad I didn't quite give up yet. It's not very funny, but it made me smile so slightly.

Guys, as an experiment, I went back through the past 100 comics to see how many of them made me chuckle on first reading them. (The answer? 15, give or take.) The last one where I involuntarily laughed out loud was 535. (To be fair to Randy, I also liked 528 a lot.

So the optimal course of action seems to be to not read it for about two weeks, and then read like six at once, and there's a decent chance that there'll be one that's okay.

The moment I saw the "girl" was named Lisa, I immediately thought "oh, goodness, the criticism finally got to him! He REALISED the Megan thing was getting beyond creepy!", but then, Lisa turns out to be a spambot... ... yeah... I guess I expected too much.

The comic was okay, even though it was a very, very longwinded attempt at telling a quite cheap and unsurprising joke. The idea of "spambot tries to seduce its victims" when done by xkcd turns into annoyingly stereotypical, starry-eyed "all is full of love" Randall-ism, and doesn't seem to get the necessary bitter treatment. I still think it was a decent strip; and I admit, if I still had the fanboy mentality, I'd find it HI-LA-RIOUS (mea culpa!).

Incidentally, saying good things about something is still criticism. So's saying how it could be improved."

Goggle Fox, you are either a troll or one of the dumbest people alive.

"Willy 224 acted like a transparent strawman of the Munroe-worshiping sycophants that Lost Man mistook us for. Also, Willy 224 stopped showing up the instant L-man was banninated. I think it's safe to say Willy was a sock puppet."

I found this blog by typing "github for lesbians" in google. Usually there's a lot of hits for new expressions introduced by xkcd comics as people start to play with them.

And I'm really sad that what I found here is one of the most shitty, awful blogs over the internet.

First I thought that you (the author, I'm talking to you) are simply a frustrated guy, you have some problems with you (small penis for instance, but take no offence, it's just an example). You create nothing, this blog is a shitheap, and you look at least as if you were forced to read xkcd. (Yeah, I have read the bullshit in the FAQ already.)

Even if what you say were right, the language you use and the unjustified anger that is expressed by each and every sentence of your posts, makes you simply pathetic. Any discussion with you must be a traumatic thing.

Then I found one more your post, the one about comic 630. And now it is quite clear for me, that you are simply stupid :) Well, not everyone needs to be intelligent, so let me just wish you all the best for the rest of your life, poor man.

(I'll never visit this site again, of course, so don't bother answering.)

Randall gets lots of praise and very little criticism. We believe that because of this, he now thinks he is perfect or good enough, and doesn't try to improve any more, or put much effort into his comics. That everything he does is pure gold, but it's not.Only the most deluded of fanboys refuses to notice the massive decline in quality.Possibly, Randall may one day actually read the constructive criticism, and if we're lucky, actually improve. This is the best possible situation.If Randy keeps getting worse, more fans will be converted by this site (eg. Fernie Canto), or independently. If this becomes a significant loss (to the point where xkcd becomes the new CAD or Garfield), Randall will either continue what he's doing or work hard to regain/hold onto his current fanbase. The former is unlikely, as he makes his income off the site. The latter however, may, just may, make the comic much better. This is desirable.You, Anon 10:18 and the people like you, are the main reason why xkcd is so terrible now. Your blind fanboyish worship of Munroe is actually hurting him. If you truly care for the comic and for his livelihood, you will stop praising him as your god. "The worst thing you can tell a creator is that he does not need to improve".

I'm pleasantly surprised to see such an elaborate comment. Let me answer in a few words, I wouldn't like you to feel like your effort of writing it was not appreciated.

One might agree or not that there is a decline in quality of xkcd comic strips. There is surely a change, but not everyone says it is a change for worse. Some just see it as the process of evolution. Some like it and others don't, and this is not what I think, this is the fact.

You suggest that I suggest that you all should just shut up and not criticise xkcd. This is not true, you can always criticise what you don't like, especially on the internet. The problem is - do you know the term "constructive criticism"? I guess you might not know it. There is not a bit of it on this blog.

What you can find here is hate and anger towards xkcd and its author. If a post begins with "shit, shit, shit, shit, ...", it is not constructive. It is useless, and pitiful. When you name your posts "that fucking hat with lines shit" and so on, it just isn't funny, constructive, anything. I wanted to give some more example of useless "destructiveness" of this blog but I just can't stand reading these posts.

Let me just say that the comic mentioned in http://xkcdsucks.blogspot.com/2008/06/comic-432-sucks-ass.html is one of the good comics (not necessarily the best, but good). Unless you are a tard and don't even try to see the message it carries, and the mood, the atmosphere, the sense of emptiness which is contained within these few strokes. Can't you see it, and admit that you probably wouldn't do it better? (What's wrong with the strip, you say? That it is short? Let me leave it without comment.)

Somehow I'm not afraid of the quality of xkcd. For me it's just xkcd, and if you don't like then: if you don't have better ideas then just shut up and find better place than xkcd (which should be easy if xkcd really sucks), and if you do, take pencil and draw the best comic strips on the planet yourselves. That's just my suggestion which I know you will ignore. I just expressed my thoughts, which are related to what I find useful and constructive, and what I find to be awful and bad in the moral sense.

Now, a word to you all, who think "HA, HE RETURNED, AS I SAID!": I don't write it neither for you nor for the blog or its author. This is just a response to what R. said. I'm being polite, just like R. was.

Oh fellow anonymous. I love how you're clearly trying to make yourself out to be rational and intelligent with such wonderfully stilted sentences as "One might agree or not that there is a decline in quality of xkcd comic strips." and then go and ruin it by using the word "tard".

Yeah, Anon, I think you're here to stay. You had your chance to take your potshot and leave and you didn't (which is a good thing - it's childish and annoying.) I think you're here for the duration of the conversation at least.

If you don't mind I'll just skip over the insults ("pathetic" "small penis" etc) because as creative as they are, we've seen them a few times before and they've kind of lost their effect by now.

"You suggest that I suggest that you all should just shut up and not criticise xkcd. This is not true, you can always criticise what you don't like, especially on the internet. The problem is - do you know the term "constructive criticism"? I guess you might not know it. There is not a bit of it on this blog."

What you're missing is that this blog has two purposes. The first is entertainment. We read (and comment) on this blog because it's a fun diversion, and most of the people here have an interest in webcomics and criticism that goes beyond just hating xkcd.

The second purpose is to make xkcd better. And this is a lesser purpose. There IS a lot of useful criticism on this blog - we almost never say we hate a strip without saying WHY. If Randall actually read this blog, even commented on it - I fucking guarantee you we'd all get a lot nicer. But he doesn't, and we know he doesn't. He's had conversations ABOUT this blog, he knows it exists, but he's never shown the slightest inclination to COME HERE and take what useful criticism from it he may. He's never even had the guts to tell us to fuck off. So why should we pander to him? He'd never even read it.

If you read the earlier posts when this blog started, they're a lot nicer. A lot more mellow. It wasn't even called xkcd sucks then, it was called "xkcd: overrated." I wonder why we changed?

"What you can find here is hate and anger towards xkcd and its author. If a post begins with "shit, shit, shit, shit, ...", it is not constructive. It is useless, and pitiful."

Now why is it pitiful? Let me tell you a secret: a lot of the anger on this blog is faked. I don't lie awake nights, seething with hatred about how much I hate xkcd. For me, this blog is a fun diversion where I can come to talk about a subject I'm interested in. I don't think that's "pitiful", pathetic, or unhealthy.

The FUCK SHIT RAGE thing is a gimmick. It's supposed to be funny or at least interesting to read. Obviously you don't think so. Popular opinion seems to be against you.

Well, I don't like that either, and if you want to we can discuss why, BUT: don't confuse Carl's opinion for the opinion of the entire blog. People frequently disagree here. It is not a circlejerk, despite what some would have you believe.

"if you don't have better ideas then just shut up and find better place than xkcd (which should be easy if xkcd really sucks), and if you do, take pencil and draw the best comic strips on the planet yourselves."

I wouldn't have to draw the best comic strips on the planet. I'd just have to make them consistently funny.

But that's irrelevant. If you read the link I posted, you know what I think about this attitude. It's bullshit. We're talking about Randall, not me - you don't have to be a director to write a review of a movie.

"I'm pleasantly surprised to see such an elaborate comment. Let me answer in a few words, I wouldn't like you to feel like your effort of writing it was not appreciated."

Whatever you think about this blog, I feel that I (we) have proven that we put some thought into what we write and don't outright dismiss our detractors.

Anyway, you're obviously free to go, but I hope you stick around. I like having xkcd fans on this blog, provided they don't act like jackasses. Which so far you've done. Sorry.

I find that XKCD fans coexist with the critics. Without the fans, the comic writer gets bored and apathetic trying to please a community of people who dislike his work.Without the critics, the comic writer realizes that the community will be pleased with less and less effort, and the quality goes down.

Funnily enough, it seems that critics are like predator-parasites, fans are like prey, and the media (XKCD) is the giant coral reef where they play. Sure, a comic can live with just fans, but wherever there are fans, there's sure to be a critic.

I like XKCD. I read it, I enjoy it. The reasons why are immaterial. In fact, I enjoyed 631 because I knew the reaction with this blog would be HILARIOUS. And I'm totally right. Ultimately, XKCD's existence is to make ours more enjoyable, and it does not matter how it achieves it.

(That's why it would be utterly hilarious -and right- to realize that 631 was just messing with the blog.)

Well, OK, "constructive criticism" and related stuff are always easy to dodge, let me use the word. I read more or less what's under the link that you gave, and I agree partially. But probably that's not the point.

As for the entertainment - well, for me it's not entertaining at all, reading posts here. I assure you that I have read 4 or 5 of them and had a look at some more, and found no atom of entertainment. Really. This is why I won't stay here, as a part of the community.

As for xkcd's author's attitude to this blog - at this moment I really don't see any chance of him coming here and reading the posts or comments. I wouldn't like to read in each post how bad my strips are, how they suck and what shit they are, even if the anger is faked or jokes. He'll not come I guess, because at this moment this blog is offensive, the name being first on the list. That's why I think this blog will not make xkcd better, not a bit.

Posts on this blog look like attempts to find all possible mistakes in xkcd strips. Starting with "he might have said it in a more funny way", ending with "the idea is old and so stupid that I can't stand it". I do see from time to time also remarks like "this strip is above the average" or "I quite like it", but in general the blog is very, very biased. Not even trying to look as objective criticism. This is why I thought that when I write a pro-xkcd comment, I'll be treated like a pro-choice on a catholic forum. I was wrong, I must admit. Nevertheless, the impression of a place where xkcd sucks no matter what, remains, and is very negative for me. Probably we could discuss 432 (I already made my statement and justified it), but still only descriptions like "stupid guy, why only one picture, the bench is drawn badly, the monologue sucks and the whole strip is shit" seems to match the atmosphere of this blog.

As for myself, I'm a big fan of xkcd (also when measured in $). Some strips are just perfect, some are hard to understand and this makes them not very funny for me, and some are experiments, which might not be funny, but are creative. There are also some that seem to completely miss my taste. In fact, I don't like 631 too much. But the reaction "OH. HOLY. CRAP. OH WHAT THE FUCK. WHAT THE FUCK, RANDALL? what is this supposed to be? Seriously, tell me what it is supposed to be. I don't have a fucking clue" is just awful for me. As a lot of things here, it is pretentious. But OK, maybe it is really funny for some of you. You also keep calling the author of xkcd by his first name, which really looks rude in the context. What I see here is repulsive for me, so even some bits of real discussion just sink in this.

"As for the entertainment - well, for me it's not entertaining at all, reading posts here. I assure you that I have read 4 or 5 of them and had a look at some more, and found no atom of entertainment. Really. This is why I won't stay here, as a part of the community."

Not every post is going to be brilliant. Write 200 posts and eventually it'll get hard to keep them interesting. If you dislike every post on this site though, then I guess that's just that.

"As for xkcd's author's attitude to this blog - at this moment I really don't see any chance of him coming here and reading the posts or comments. (... more stuff...) That's why I think this blog will not make xkcd better, not a bit."

Randall discovered this site sometime before last October. This blog was just not that negative back then. Before then, I made more of an attempt to be nice, because I thought there was a chance Randall might actually be reading it.

And again - if he DID read this blog, I guarantee you we would be able to have a positive, constructive discussion with him. I'd bet you any amount of money. A lot of the negativity here is because we KNOW he doesn't read it, we know he has no INTEREST in reading it, know he didn't take what we had to say to heart even when we were polite. So we're yelling into empty air.

"Posts on this blog look like attempts to find all possible mistakes in xkcd strips. Starting with "he might have said it in a more funny way", ending with "the idea is old and so stupid that I can't stand it". I do see from time to time also remarks like "this strip is above the average" or "I quite like it", but in general the blog is very, very biased."

Dude, think. Think what blog this is. Would most of us have bothered to type "xkcd sucks" into Google if we didn't dislike most of the strips?

But you know what, you do have a point. We're more vocal if we hate a strip. The most recent one for example, I thought it was all right, but I didn't bother to leave a comment saying so until now. I just didn't care enough. Consider it a personal flaw.

"You also keep calling the author of xkcd by his first name, which really looks rude in the context. What I see here is repulsive for me, so even some bits of real discussion just sink in this."

Look man, I am genuinely not trying to insult you, but if calling him Randall bothers you, then you have really thin skin. I mean - what do you expect us to call him? Randall is what he goes by. "Mr. Munroe"?

The atmosphere here... look, this isn't half as negative as it could be. Look at "Your Webcomic is Bad and You Should Feel Bad." The atmosphere on THAT blog is repulsive to me. Maybe you just have a low tolerance for this kind of stuff.

But it's true, a constant stream of FUCK SHIT HATRED gets old. It gets boring. Which is why Carl DOESN'T write that way all the time, and I try to write in a more measured style when I guest-post (which I've done a few times.) I don't know what posts you're looking at, but if you're judging the whole blog by the last few, well. We hated comic 631 a whole lot, if you couldn't tell.

This blog is all about why xkcd sucks. People are free to post what they want and left to their own devices a lot of people will be assholes. But it's not pure jackassery here either.

IT IS CALLED XKCD SUCKS. I am not sure what else you were expecting. The blog is not called xkcd: it's ok sometimes, or xkcd: an in-depth look at the jungian archetypes in randall munroe's world, or xkcd: happy fun fun magical rabbit love times.

@ Covizapi...etc.: We can never know lord comic writer Randall's intent. Sometimes the possibility is oh so much funnier than the truth.

@ Anon 3:09: If William Monty Hughes post wasn't funny to you, I'm afraid your humour box has been killed. Maybe you need to stay on this blog a little longer, but I found myself laughing about it hours later into the day.

Anyway, Anon, how judgemental were you of this blog? When you entered, were you thinking "Oh man, this blog is gonna suck, I know it is?" Because that singular point is so very tied to your reaction, that your hatred my be based entirely on it.

Hell, imagine everyone here as a person again. Before I started posting, I too imagined them as slimeballs (Which I'm almost sorry for. Soon.) People didn't gather here because they hate XKCD and they need a place to vent. They came here for a metaphorical game of baseball where at the end everyone's smiling, not raging , communicating, and knowing that they had good fun. (Except in this game of baseball, the ball is actually a metal slug of irony, and no matter what the ref says the pitcher aims for Randall. My metaphor's rambling.)

What the hell is this?

Welcome. This is a website called XKCD SUCKS which is about the webcomic xkcd and why we think it sucks. My name is Carl and I used to write about it all the time, then I stopped because I went insane, and now other people write about it all the time. I forget their names. The posts still seem to be coming regularly, but many of the structural elements - like all the stuff in this lefthand pane - are a bit outdated. What can I say? Insane, etc.

I started this site because it had been clear to me for a while that xkcd is no longer a great webcomic (though it once was). Alas, many of its fans are too caught up in the faux-nerd culture that xkcd is a part of, and can't bring themselves to admit that the comic, at this point, is terrible. While I still like a new comic on occasion, I feel that more and more of them need the Iron Finger of Mockery knowingly pointed at them. This used to be called "XKCD: Overrated", but then it fell from just being overrated to being just horrible. Thus, xkcd sucks.

Here is a comic about me that Ann made. It is my favorite thing in the world.

Frequently Asked Questions

Divided into two convenient categories, based on whether you think this website

Rob's Rants

When he's not flipping a shit over prescriptivist and descriptivist uses of language, xkcdsucks' very own Rob likes writing long blocks of text about specific subjects. Here are some of his excellent refutations of common responses to this site. Think of them as a sort of in-depth FAQ, for people inclined to disagree with this site.